1 / 20

Scheduling in Heterogeneous Grid Environments: The Effects of Data Migration

Scheduling in Heterogeneous Grid Environments: The Effects of Data Migration. Leonid Oliker, Hongzhang Shan Future Technology Group Lawrence Berkeley Research Laboratory Warren Smith, Rupak Biswas NASA Advanced Supercomputing Division NASA Ames Research Center. Motivation.

amity
Download Presentation

Scheduling in Heterogeneous Grid Environments: The Effects of Data Migration

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Scheduling in Heterogeneous Grid Environments:The Effects of Data Migration Leonid Oliker, Hongzhang Shan Future Technology Group Lawrence Berkeley Research Laboratory Warren Smith, Rupak Biswas NASA Advanced Supercomputing Division NASA Ames Research Center

  2. Motivation • Geographically distributed resources • Difficult to schedule and manage efficiently • Autonomy (local scheduler) • Heterogeneity • Lack of perfect global information • Conflicting requirements between users and system administrators

  3. Current Status • Grid Initiatives • Global Grid Forum, NASA Information Power Grid, TeraGrid, Particle Physics Data Grid, E-Grid, LHC Challenge • Grid Scheduling Services • Enabling multi-site application • Multi-Disciplinary Applications, Remote Visualization, Co-Scheduling,Distributed Data Mining, Parameter Studies • Job Migration • Improve Time-to-Solution • Avoid dependency on single resource provider • Optimize application mapping to target architecture • But what are the tradeoffs of data migration?

  4. Our Contributions • Interaction between grid scheduler and local scheduler • Architecture: distributed, centralized, and ideal • Real workloads • Performance metrics • Job migration overhead • Superscheduler scalability • Fault tolerance • Multi-resource requirements

  5. Grid Queue Local Queue Distributed Architecture Communication Infrastructure Info Job Job Middleware Grid Scheduler Grid Env Local Env Local Scheduler Compute Server PE PE … PE

  6. Grid Queue Job Middleware JR Grid Scheduler AWT & CRU Local Scheduler Local Queue Sender-Initiated (S-I) Receiver-Initiated (R-I) Symmetrically-Initiated (Sy-I) Else : Considered for Migration Interaction between Grid and Local Schedulers • AWT: Approximate Wait Time • CRU: Current Resource Utilization • JR: Job Requirements If AWT <  :

  7. Sender-Initiated (S-I) Partner 1 Host Partner 2 Jobi Jobi Requirements Jobi Requirements ART0 & CRU0 ART1 & CRU1 ART2 & CRU2 Jobi Resultsi Select the machine with the smallest Approximate Response Time (ART), Break tie by CRU ART = Approx Wait Time + Estimated Run Time

  8. Receiver-Initiated (R-I) Partner 1 Host Partner 2 Jobi Free Signal Free Signal Jobi Requirements Jobi Requirements ART0 & CRU0 ART1 & CRU1 ART2 & CRU2 Jobi Querying begins after receiving free signal

  9. No Volunteer After Time Period  Have Volunteers R-I S-I Symmetrically-Initiated (Sy-I) • First, work in R-I mode • Change to S-I mode if no machines volunteer • Switch back to R-I after job is scheduled

  10. Web Portals Or Super Shell Jobs Grid Queue Centralized Architecture Middleware Grid Scheduler Advantages: Global View Disadvantages: Single point of failure, Scalability

  11. Performance Metrics

  12. Resource Configuration and Site Assignment • Each local site network has peak bandwidth of 800Mb/s (gigabit Ethernet LAN) • External network has 40Mb/s available point-to-point (high-performance WAN) • Assume all data transfers share network equally (network contention is modeled) • Assume performance linearly related to CPU speed • Assume users pre-compiled code for each of the heterogeneous platforms

  13. Job Workloads • Systems located at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, NASA Ames Research Center,Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, San Diego Supercomputing Center • Data volume info not available. Assume volume is correlated to volume of work • B is number if Kbytes of each work unit (CPU * runtime) • Our best estimate is B=1Kb for each CPU second of application execution

  14. Scheduling Policy 12 Sites Workload B • Large potential gain using grid superscheduler • Reduced average wait time by 25X compared with local scheme! • Sender-Initiated performance comparable to Centralized • Inverse between migration (FOJM,FDVM) and timing (NAWT, NART) • Very small fraction of response time spent moving data (DMOH)

  15. Data Migration Sensitivity Sender-I 12 Sites • NAWT for 100B almost 8X than B, NART 50% higher • DMOH increases to 28% and 44% for 10B and 100B respectively • As B increases, data migration (FDVM) decreases due to increasing overhead • FOJM inconsistent because it measures # of jobs NOT data volume

  16. Site Number Sensitivity Sender-I • 0.1B causes no site sensitivity, • 10B has noticeable effect as sites decrease from 12 to 3: • Decrease in time (NAWT, NART) due to increase in network bandwidth • Increase in fraction of data volume migrated (FDVM) • 40% Increase in fraction of response time moving data (DMOH)

  17. Communication ObliviousScheduling Sender-I • For B10 If data migration cost is not considered in scheduling algorithm: • NART increases 14X, 40X for 12Sites, 3Sites respectively • NAWT increases 28X,43X for 12Sites, 3Sites respectively • DMOH is over 96%! (only 3% for B set) • 16% of all jobs blocked from executing waiting for data • Compared with practically 0% for communication-aware scheduling

  18. Increased WorkloadSensitivity Sender-I12 Sites Workload B • Grid scheduling 40% more jobs, compared with non-grid local scheme: • No increase in time NAWT NART • Weighted Utilization increased from 66% to 93% • However there is fine line, when # of jobs increase by 45% • NAWT grows 3.5X, NART grows 2.4X!

  19. Conclusions • Studied impact of data migration, simulating: • Compute servers • Grouping of serves into sites • Inter-server networks • Results showed huge benefits of grid scheduling • S-I reduced average turnaround time by 60% compared with local approach, even in the presence of input/output data migration • Algorithm can execute 40% more jobs in grid environment and deliver same turnaround times as non-grid scenario • For large data files, critical to consider migration overhead • 43X increase in NART using communication-oblivious scheduling

  20. Future Work • Superscheduling scalability: • Resource discovery • Fault tolerance • Multi-resource requirements • Architectural heterogeneity • Practical deployment issues

More Related